It’s a sham. How many consultants does one need to hire to get the answer that they want? Are we on our third set? Don’t waste taxpayer money to give the appearance of impartiality. Just come out with it….”we are a small network of individuals who promote our own interests.” The good news is that the truth eventually always comes out….you can set your watch by it. It’s just a matter of time. I, for one, will be watching, and waiting. Hope the truth gets coverage.

Put me down as confused. There are several things that confuse me. First of all, there clearly wasn’t time to do an engineering study of the various sites. So, if it was so simple to determine the North Bricktown site was not workable due to utilities, etc, why was it ever on the list? If the site south of the Ford Center is now a better choice than the North Bricktown and Cox sites, why wasn’t it on the list to begin with? If it was so simple to determine that it’s too complicated to demolish the Cox Center and construct a new CC there, why was it ever on the list? Populous came up with no new information, as far as I’m concerned, and their “insight” seems like a HUGE waste of money. All things being equal, I’d rank East Bricktown first, the south of the Ford Center site second and the Bob Howard site would be removed from consideration. To me, there is no good reason to even consider it, besides the fact that it is open land. Why would we waste prime real estate on a convention center? It seems to me that the fact that the city is planning to spend a lot of money on this convention center has given it a luster it doesn’t deserve. It’s going to be a large box occupied by people who don’t live in Oklahoma City sitting around at boring meetings thinking about where they’re going to eatdinner and wondering why OKC doesn’t have better shopping downtown. It’s almost assuredly not going to be an architectural wonder, nor is it going to add anything significant to the urban fabric of our downtown. Let’s stick it somewhere relatively convenient, but out of sight. Which is why I probably lean toward East Bricktown, wishing it were closer to our downtown hotels, and see south of the Ford Center a close second.

I agree Jill, it needs to go someplace that is already a dead zone and not likely to be used for anything else (the location where the highest and best use would be the convention center). Anywhere along the Park(s) is too valuable either as residential/retail or mixed use. Think you are on the wrong sub-committee. They could use your insight.

I probably fall under the “I’m confused by everything that is happening” category but didn’t choose it because on the same line it states, “what is going on doesn’t make sense”…how do i know what makes sense? I’m not a consultant…just because I’m confused doesn’t mean the process doesn’t make sense.

This kind of project kind of ranks up there with high design, which means it moves very slowly. I’m confused by what is happening, but I don’t think it doesn’t make sense. Something this important is going to take time to develop. It isn’t just the Mayor that is paying Populous, it is the city. If something shady is going on Populous opens themselves to a lawsuit or worse which is why I doubt anything deceptive is happening.

I think the mayor has already made it clear that he prefers the Core to shore-south site. I think leaving Core to Shore as a mixed residential-retail area with the park would be better. I’m with Jill….I prefer the East Bricktown site. It’s close to the restaurants for the convention-goers, and in an already dead area.

This is not rocket science. And it certainly shouldn’t be confusing. Clear and concise criteria was set forward. I don’t think that anyone would give Mayor Cornett enough credit for masterminding this. There is a small group of people who will benefit. And time will tell who those people are. In my opinion, an elected official should not personally benefit for financially or otherwise from decisions that they make while in office. That goes for people appointed to things like the Maps Oversight Committee. Do we really believe that those members will do what is best for the city when they have personally financial interests at stake?

Personally, I’d like to see data showing elected officials are benefitting financially or otherwise from any particular site being selected. What are the specific financial interests of people on the MAPS oversight committee that will be benefitted by any particular location of the convention center? There are too many people on the committee to satisfy all of them.

To me, it seems simple, although it is pure conjecture on my part. I believe the mayor is worried about Core to Shore development. If the park is the only thing being built there, what is the impetus for further development? By putting the convention center adjacent to the park, especially on the east side, you just about guarantee there will also be a convention center hotel built in the Core to Shore area. Voila, you have two significant buildings and a park, which will probably jump start future development of the area far more than simply putting a park there will. If we don’t build it there, the park sits in the middle of a bunch of blighted land. If development doesn’t occur quickly, we run the risk of people not going there, of it not being the grand park envisioned by him and the other people involved in Core to Shore. That’s the reason I’m guessing the mayor is pushing the parkside east location. And I can empathize with that line of thinking. I too want Core to Shore to succeed. I don’t know if the convention center is the answer, but I still understand the thought process, if that’s indeed what it is.